判決理由書／裁決書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判決理由書／裁決書為準。
The judgment states that on 29 September 2019 eight defendants participated in an unauthorized march near the Central Government Complex in Admiralty, which gradually escalated into a riot. The prosecution alleges that two defendants repeatedly hurled petrol bombs and hard objects at government buildings, and identified their identities and actions through CCTV footage, online videos, handheld camera recordings, expert testimony and police identification evidence. The police subsequently deployed water cannons and tear gas to disperse the crowd, and at approximately 16:48 launched a surprise assault through a concealed exit to subdue the defendants on site. During the trial, one defendant testified that they had passed by incidentally, but the court rejected this defence; the remaining defendants either pleaded guilty or were no longer tried, leaving only two defendants to proceed to trial.
Under Section 19 of Chapter 245 of the Public Order Ordinance, the offence of rioting is a participation-based crime, punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment. Sentencing must consider the defendant’s level of involvement in the riot, the degree of harm caused, their motives and their remorse.
The defendant was at the core of the riot, wearing dark protective gear and actively throwing petrol bombs and hard objects at government buildings. The evidence is reliable and the defence’s testimony defies logic; the intention to commit the offence was clear, posing a serious threat to public order and requiring severe punishment as a deterrent.
The judge considered that the prosecution’s CCTV footage and expert analysis presented a complete case without reasonable doubt, and that police identification constituted admissible evidence. The judge further noted that the defence of merely passing by was not credible. Both defendants unquestionably participated in the riot and should bear criminal responsibility.
This court finds both defendants guilty of rioting, and sentencing is adjourned for a separate hearing. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判決理由書／裁決書
判刑理由書撮要(由AI生成)
以下撮要以AI生成及／或翻譯，內容以原來的判刑理由書為準。
The judgment states that on 29 September 2019, multiple protesters marched from Causeway Bay to outside the Government Headquarters in Admiralty, and, without authorisation, occupied Harcourt Road. During this period, some protesters threw petrol bombs and hard objects at Government Headquarters, used a large slingshot to hurl projectiles, and disrupted police filming with laser beams; after issuing several warnings, the police fired water cannon and tear gas to disperse the crowd. At around 16:48, officers charged in and arrested eight defendants, who were wearing dark clothing and masks and were actively participating in the riot, several of whom had actually thrown objects.
In accordance with section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance, the maximum penalty for riot is ten years’ imprisonment; with reference to HKSAR v. Yang Ka-lun, Tang Ho-yin and Leung Tin-ki and others, considering the scale, number of participants, planning, use of weapons, casualties and impact on public order, the starting sentence is set at four years and six months’ imprisonment. For those who actually used violence, an additional three months is added, and a guilty plea may be reduced by 2% to 25%.
Having regard to the defendants’ participation in a large-scale riot outside the Government Headquarters for about 30 minutes, with over a hundred people gathering and repeatedly throwing petrol bombs and hard objects at officers, which seriously disrupted social order; although some defendants showed remorse and had good backgrounds, the riot was serious and required a high degree of deterrence; the young defendant is allowed to attend a training centre in place of imprisonment, and the other defendants receive sentence reductions according to the timing of their guilty pleas and the severity of their conduct.
The offence of riot is not to be assessed solely by individual acts but by the overall conduct of the rioters; in a society governed by the rule of law, serious unprovoked violence, especially targeting law enforcement officers, cannot be tolerated; the defendants’ background and physical or mental conditions are not grounds for a reduction, but in light of a momentary lapse and remorse, a limited reduction is granted; the earlier the guilty plea, the greater the reduction.
Defendant One was sentenced to four years and seven months’ imprisonment; Defendants Two and Three were ordered to attend a training centre; Defendant Four was sentenced to four years and one month’s imprisonment; Defendant Five was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment; Defendant Seven was sentenced to three years and five months’ imprisonment; Defendant Eight was sentenced to three years and four months’ imprisonment. (Translated from Chinese to English by AI)
查看完整判刑理由書